"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" 

The primary site for this blog mirror is HERE. Dissecting Leftism is HERE (and mirrored here). The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here. Other mirror sites: Greenie Watch, Political Correctness Watch, Education Watch, Immigration Watch, Food & Health Skeptic, Gun Watch, Socialized Medicine, Eye on Britain, Recipes, Dissecting Leftism and Australian Politics. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing) See here or here for the archives of this site

31 August, 2011

Leftist hate speech towards Israel in Scotland

Paul Donnachie

We read:
"A student at St Andrews University has been found guilty of a racist breach of the peace after he insulted the flag of Israel.

Donnachie has been expelled from St Andrews

The court heard that Donnachie and Mr Colchester entered the halls at 01:30 on 12 March to see another student who shared the flat.

Lithuanian-born Mr Reitblat said he had the 4ft by 3ft flag on the wall after being given it by his brother, an Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldier.

He said Donnachie noticed the flag, and said Israel was a terrorist state and the flag was a terrorist symbol. He then unbuttoned his trousers, put his hands down his pants, pulled off a pubic hair and rubbed it over the flag.

Sentencing Donnachie, a history student and member of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, sheriff Charlie Macnair said: "This flag was his personal property. I consider that your behaviour did evince malice towards Mr Reitblat because of his presumed membership of Israel. "I'm satisfied that you said Israel was a terrorist state and the flag was a terrorist symbol and I also hold that you said that Mr Reitblat was a terrorist."

Sentence on Donnachie was deferred for background reports.

Outside the court, a tearful Donnachie said he would appeal. He said: "This is a ridiculous conviction. I'm a member of anti-racism campaigns, and I am devastated that as someone who was fought against racism I have been tarnished in this way."

He tarnished himself. He's sure got a funny way of fighting against racism. Just an unthinking Left-indoctrinated fool, I guess.

Privacy mandates are bad news for web users

We read:
"When Congress returns from its summer recess, Internet privacy will be high on its agenda. Half a dozen bills introduced this session aim to address the privacy 'crisis' by imposing new regulations on businesses.

Amid this panicked flurry of legislative activity, lawmakers need to slow down and take a deep breath. While the state of Internet privacy today is far from perfect, federal meddling with the thriving online ecosystem will only hurt consumers."


30 August, 2011

Must not "black up" -- for any reason

Two Australian guys above "blacked up" as a form of support for a black footballer -- the guy in the middle above. Big blunder!
Qantas has been slammed for encouraging two men to dress in blackface and posting the photo on Twitter.

The Twitter competition, held earlier this month, asked Australian fans to tell how they would show their support for the team for the chance to win two exclusive tickets to the game with New Zealand at Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium on Saturday night.

The competition winners arrived at the game dressed as their favourite player, Radike Samo, wearing Australia's famous green and gold and with their arms, legs and faces painted black. Qantas posted a photo of the duo on its official Twitter page.

But what was supposed to be "a show of support" sparked outrage among Twitter users, who labelled the "blacking up" stunt "appalling."

Qantas quickly removed the photo and apologised to its followers Sunday morning. "We understand it caused offense to some people, which is why it was removed. We are really sorry if it has upset anyone," the tweet read.


"Holocaust" a dangerous word

Words like "meltdown" or "brain-dead" are sometimes used as a form of emphasis rather than as a literal description of anything. But you cannot use "holocaust" that way in Britain, apparently
Football pundit Tony Cascarino triggered an angry reaction on Twitter on Sunday after he described a player as having a "holocaust" of a game.

Discussing defender Armand Traore's performance on the pitch, Cascarino said: "Poor Traore at right back is having a holocaust because he's finding himself against (United winger) Nani, who's literally running him from everywhere and (Arsenal midfielder Andrey) Arshavin's just not tracking his runners."

Angry fans immediately hit out at his comments on Twitter. One user wrote: "Tony Cascarino should be sacked on the spot. He said an Arsenal defender was having a "holocaust". Appallingly ignorant."

Another micro-blogger branded the comment "horrendous", adding: "I hope Tony Cascarino is dealt with appropriately."

Sky Sports News said presenter Natalie Sawyer had apologised straightaway for Cascarino's remarks. It said in a statement: "Tony Cascarino made his comments in the heat of the moment. An immediate apology on behalf of Tony and Sky Sports was made on air as soon as possible for any offence caused."

As everybody knows, I am a strong supporter of Israel but I am inclined to see this as just another kneejerk from the perpetually offended.

Technically, "meltdown" "brain-dead", "holocaust" and "kneejerk" are all used as metaphors and metaphors have a distinguished literary history

29 August, 2011

Disagree with Al Gore -- you are a racist

"Fighting for Mother Earth’s Civil Rights": Al Gore Says Debating With Him on Climate Science Is the Moral Equivalent of Being a Bull Connor Racist.

If you have a strong stomach and can withstand hate-filled self righteousness, watch him below


Since Gore's own father voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I guess he knows a bit about the subject.

Letterman: An unlikely hero

We read:
"David Letterman is the late night host you hate to love and love to hate. In a word, he is annoying. However, he took a big, bold, courageous step on Monday.

A while back he made some jokes on his show about Al Qaeda leaders. The internet came alive with the usual jihadist and Al Qaeda crazies threatening mayhem, including cutting his tongue out and breaking his neck.

This often happens when people offend political extremists. The crazies come out of the woodwork to demand a groveling apology and to demand that people not offend them, whatever that means. In this new era of polite and politically correct speech, we cave in to others in an orgy of self censorship, anxious to cater to their tender sensitivities and avoid their wrath. We back down.

On his first day back from vacation, Letterman struck back. Not only was he funny, he was refreshing. Unlike the cowards and milquetoasts from other talk shows, news shows, and media outlets, Letterman did not back down. He showed no fear of the infamous Politically Correct Police, nor did he grovel for fear that “something” might happen. He stood up to his wannabe tormentors and gave as good as he got.

More surprising, CBS aired it. The video is at the end of this article.

Letterman proved there is no reason to fear. Not one thing happened as a result of his monologue. You pesky politically correct cowards and multi-culti macaroons take note; you cowardly media executives and producers pay attention: Nothing happened. A few internet crazies went ballistic, but it was all blowing smoke. No one paid any attention.

It’s about time. We are Americans. We will not be afraid to speak. We have freedom of expression, the press, and speech. We should never be afraid to invoke those freedoms. Every time we back down, whether for fear of reprisal or fear of harming tender sensitivities, we lose a bit of our freedom.


28 August, 2011

Pole dancing as free speech again

Calling dancing speech has always seemed a stretch too far to me so I like this ruling:
"The Texas Supreme Court ruled unanimously Friday a $5 "pole tax" on strip clubs is constitutional.

Lower courts had previously said the so-called “pole tax” violated the First Amendment by placing an undue burden on free expression.

But the all-Republican state supreme court said in Friday’s ruling that the $5 fee is too small to be considered a burden, and that the state has a legitimate interest in curbing the “secondary effects of nude dancing when alcohol is consumed,” like potential violence.

According to the ruling, because the fee is not aimed specifically at nude dancing and clubs can “avoid the fee altogether simply by not allowing alcohol to be consumed,” it is not unconstitutional.

As far as I can tell, SCOTUS has never ruled that pole dancing is free speech. Such rulings have been in lower courts only.

Mennonite college bans even the melody of the national anthem

I wouldn't be surprised if this became a starting point for a move to get the national anthem out of all schools. Left-leaning teachers would be keen on doing that.
"First, The Blaze reported that a tiny, 1,000-student Mennonite school in Indiana banned the words to the National Anthem, now however, Goshen College has banned the song in its entirety — melody and all.

According to Goshen’s president, Jim Brenneman, the words to The Star-Spangled Banner were “too violent.” The reasonable explanation being that the Mennonite faith reportedly endorses pacifism.

While the school band was allowed to continue playing the tune to the National Anthem, even that is now apparently too much.

The school’s board of directors allegedly told Brenneman to “find an alternative to playing the National Anthem that fits with sports tradition, that honors country and that resonates with Goshen College’s core values and respects the views of diverse constituencies.”

How can you have music that honors the country unless the music is part of a patriotic song? It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

27 August, 2011

Facebook's 'Like' Button Declared Illegal by German State

In some ways, Germany today is just as nutty as it was in the 1930s
"Facebook's famous "Like" button has been declared illegal under Germany's strict privacy laws by data protection officials.

The north Germany state of Schleswig-Holstein demanded that dozens of websites that carry the button linking to the social networking site remove the offending item by the end of September or face a fine of up to €50,000 ($71,935), The Local reported Friday.

Thilo Weichert, of the state's data protection center, said the application allowed Facebook to illegally piece together a profile of web users' habits. "Facebook can trace every click on a website, how long I'm on it, what I'm interested in," he said.


Racial abuse in Australian junior football

It's common worldwide. Sport tends to wind people up and some act incautiously in the heat of the moment as a result. Should not be taken too seriously
"A COUNTRY football umpire is the latest figure to be involved in a racial vilification case this year. He is alleged to have racially abused a player in a North Gippsland Football League match last weekend. The player was from Woodside Football Club, playing Cowwarr.

It is alleged the umpire racially taunted the indigenous player during the last quarter before the player retaliated by kicking a ball at the umpire's head.

North Gippsland league general manager Gordon Bailey said the issue was disappointing. "We got a complaint from Woodside about the alleged vilification of one of their players by an umpire," Bailey said. "The umpire and his association have agreed to attend a mediation session. Hopefully it will take place sooner rather than later."


26 August, 2011

No freedom to advertise pharmaceutical drugs?

We read:
"Google Inc. has agreed to pay $500 million for carrying advertisements by online Canadian pharmacies targeting consumers in the United States, according to the U.S. Justice Department.

The ads resulted in the illegal importation of prescription drugs, the Justice Department said. The $500 million represents the money Google made from selling the drug ads, plus the revenue earned by Canadian pharmacies from sales to American customers."

I think that Google could have beaten the Justice Dept. in SCOTUS over this -- on 1st Amendment grounds. But they must have thought it wiser to settle.

Fla. Teacher Suspended for Posting Anti-Gay Marriage Views on Facebook

We read:
"A Florida history teacher has been suspended after it was revealed he wrote about his objections to gay marriage on his personal Facebook page. Jerry Buell, who was Mount Dora High School’s “Teacher of the Year” last year, reportedly wrote that he almost “threw up” in response to New York’s legalization of same-sex marriage in July.

According to Fox News, the school system received a complaint about the comment Tuesday and suspended and reassigned Buell the next day.

“It was my own personal comment on my own personal time on my own personal computer in my own personal house, exercising what I believed as a social studies teacher to be my First Amendment rights,” Buell told Fox.

Chris Patton, a communications officer for the school system, told Fox there was concern about how Buell might treat gay students in his class. He also disputed the notion that the comments were private.

“He has [more than] 700 friends,” Patton said. “How private is that – really? Social media can be troubling if you don’t respect it and know that just because you think you are in a private realm – it’s not private.”

He vowed Buell will not return to the classroom until “a thorough job of looking at everything – past or previous writings” is complete.

Buell said he thought the school is trying to silence Christian teachers, warning them not to express their views.

A pretty clear 1st Amendment violation by the school there.


The school has now backed down

25 August, 2011

Vogue magazine sparks racism row over article on 'slave earrings'

Italian fashion gobbledegook gets into trouble:
"Fashion magazine Vogue has sparked a worldwide race row after it ran a trend story on what it labelled 'slave earrings'.

The article, which has been roundly criticised for being 'overtly racist', appeared on the Vogue Italia website and recalled the style of earrings worn by 'women of colour' who were brought to the southern United States during the slave trade.'

The article in full read: 'Jewellery has always flirted with circular shapes, especially for use in making earrings. The most classic models are the slave and creole styles in gold hoops. 'If the name brings to the mind the decorative traditions of the women of colour who were brought to the southern United States during the slave trade, the latest interpretation is pure freedom.

Italians generally seem rather resistant to political correctness -- as their amazing Premier, Silvio Berlusconi, often shows. But as an international outfit, I suppose Vogue has to disown the doings of its Italian tentacle.

But anyhow, what's wrong with celebrating the good taste of American blacks? You generally get praise for that. Just mentioning history is incorrect, apparently.

Must not pray for Israel?

We read:
"It’s been an odd few days for pop-sensation Katy Perry. Not only did she make history after tying Michael Jackson for having five #1 hits off of a single album, but now the week has taken a vitriolic twist. That’s because Perry faced a slew of angry responses from Palestinians and their supporters after she sent a tweet asking others to pray for Israel

Of course, it didn’t take long for the Twitterverse to light up with responses from Muslims, Palestinians and others who found the her message less-than-appealing.

It didn’t take Perry long to backtrack on her initial Tweet.

Considering Hollywood’s leftist tilt, it‘s a wonder she’s not an unabashed supporter of the Palestinians. Perry was raised in a conservative Christian home, which may explain her less liberal inclinations on the Middle Eastern conflict


24 August, 2011

Must not call an astoundingly thick quiz show contestant astoundingly thick

It is a quiz traditionally associated with the finest minds in the country. But media watchdog Ofcom has ruled that Channel 4 was right to brand one Mastermind contestant 'astoundingly thick'.

Simon Curtis recorded one of the show’s lowest scores in the history of the programme, but took umbrage when comedian David Walliams mocked him on a comedy show.

The programme, which was shown on Channel 4 in January, included a clip of Mr Curtis on Mastermind which was introduced by Walliams who said: ‘Sometimes in life, you have to know your limitations... if you’re not, let’s say, very bright, it’s probably not a good idea to go on a quiz show that tests your mental agility. ‘And by not very bright I mean, astoundingly thick.’

The probation worker complained to Ofcom that he was portrayed as being of ‘low intelligence’ and that he had not given his consent for it to be shown.

In its defence, Channel 4 said that it was obvious Mr Curtis was not literally ‘astoundingly thick’ as he was on Mastermind in the first place. But it added: 'This was the worst specialist subject performance ever seen on Mastermind.’

Ofcom agreed and refused to uphold any of Mr Curtis’s complaints. It ruled: ‘We recognise that these comments carried the potential to be offensive and insulting to Mr Curtis. ‘However we took the view that it would have been clear to viewers from the beginning of the programme that Mr Walliams - himself best known as a comedian - intended to provide humourous and light hearted opinion and comment on examples of past television clips.’

Good to see that British officialdom sometimes gets it right.

NJ GOP lawmaker quit over wife's Carl Lewis email

We read:
"A freshman Republican lawmaker resigned because his wife sent "an offensive and racist" email to the Democratic state Senate campaign of nine-time Olympic gold medalist Carl Lewis, a GOP official acknowledged Monday.

Delany and his wife, Jennifer Delany, are white. Lewis, a political novice who's among the greatest athletes of all time, is black.

Jennifer Delany's email to Lewis' campaign said, in part, "Imagine having dark skin and name recognition and the nerve to think that equaled knowing something about politics."

"Former Assemblyman Pat Delany's wife inexplicably sent an offensive and racist email in response to a routine email from Carl Lewis' campaign; her actions were inexcusable," Layton said.

Lewis is running for state Senate in New Jersey's 8th Legislative District. Delany was part of the opposing GOP Assembly slate in the district.

I suppose the email was a bit nasty but it was also a fair comment. Does being able to run fast make you a good representative? And is there any doubt that his skin color would have influenced his nomination? An inexperienced know-nothing became POTUS because of his skin color. The racism lies in nominating dummies because of their skin color -- not in criticizing that.

23 August, 2011

The latest from the very "incorrect" Pat Condell

NOBODY is allowed to criticize Obama

We read:
"Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on Thursday used Facebook to criticize President Obama’s recent decision to halt prosecutions of illegal immigrants. Early Friday morning, the post had more than 10,000 Likes, before Facebook removed it.

Brewer’s Facebook post criticized a controversial policy decision by President Barack Obama’s administration to limit deportations of illegal immigrants. It was accompanied by an illustration depicting her as “Rosie the Riveter” and a slogan that read, “Arizona – doing the job the feds won’t do.” In the image (pictured above), her face is superimposed onto the famous character representing American women who worked in factories during World War II.

Facebook told Brewer the image violated its rules: “Facebook censored the post and removed it because the photo apparently violated their ‘Facebook Community Standards,’” Brewer posted on the social network, according to The Arizona Republic. “I just got this automatic email from them at 5:12 AM,” Brewer said, adding that she had been “feeling quite proud about the post, because it had generated so much interest.”

Facebook said it was sorry for deleting the post; the company issued a statement saying that “the post was removed in error. We apologize for the inconvenience.” The social network said it mistakenly removed the post, but did not provide further details, such as whether the removal resulted from complaints by other Facebook users.


22 August, 2011

"Illegal" is a slur?

I would have thought it was a description. But if it is a slur it is an earned one
"It is rare that a story involving illegal immigration goes by on Fox News or their blog, Fox Nation, without the use of the slur "illegals" to describe undocumented immigrants.

Fox News has chosen to ignore the specific instruction of the Associated Press Style Book, which urges journalists not to shorten the phrase to exclude the word "immigrant," and calls by several news associations to stop using the word because it "pollutes" and can "skew public debate" on immigration.


Nivea pulls ‘offensive’ ad

Some advertising genius really goofed. Where has he been all his life?
"Companies like to push the envelope with their ads. Sometimes the gamble works, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes, like in the case of a new advertising campaign from Nivea, the whole thing turns into a fiasco.

Nivea, a company that specializes in skin-care products, recently released a print ad that it has since pulled. How to best describe the ad? It shows an African American man preparing to toss a decapitated head (his own?) with an afro-style haircut. The ad copy reads: "Re-Civilize Yourself." The underlying message seems to be that afros are not civilized.

Nivea has since taken down the ad and issued an apology via Facebook. "Thank you for caring enough to give us your feedback about the recent 'Re-civilized' Nivea for Men ad. This ad was inappropriate and offensive. It was never our intention to offend anyone, and for this we are deeply sorry. This ad will never be used again. Diversity and equal opportunity are crucial values of our company."


21 August, 2011

British authorities are much more punitive about talk than they are about actual rioters

Most of the real rioters walked free from court with only token sentences. So how come a couple of people whose only offence was talk got such big sentences?
Jordan Blackshaw, 20, and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, were each jailed for four years at Chester Crown Court on Tuesday after setting up Facebook pages encouraging riots in their neighbourhood.

Blackshaw set up an event called "Smashdown" in Northwich but no one apart from the police, who were monitoring the page, turned up at the rendezvous outside McDonald's.

Sutcliffe-Keenan set up a page called Warrington Riots. When he woke up the following morning with a hangover, he removed the page and apologised, saying it had been a joke. No rioting broke out as a result of his message.

The pair are clearly just a couple of witless Norman No Mates. But do their misdemeanours really merit such disproportionate sentences?


MLB's Controversial Decision To Stop Nats From Wearing Military Tribute Hats

We read:
"No sport in America is more patriotic than Major League Baseball, so it was odd that the powers that be got in the way of a tribute to our fallen military heroes.

The Washington Nationals, who play their home games just down the street from the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol, wanted to wear special hats with military insignias during their game with the Cincinnati Reds on Tuesday night. This was the Nats' first home game since 30 soldiers riding in a helicopter were killed in Afghanistan on August 6th. But Commissioner Bud Selig's top executives stopped it from happening.

Steinberg, one of the nation's top sports bloggers, then spoke with MLB spokesman Pat Courtney, who explained the decision. "We reserve hats for national tributes, where every club is wearing them on the same day," Courtney said. "But we're happy to work with clubs on alternatives."

But don't the Padres sometimes wear camouflage on Sundays to honor military heroes? Why can't the Nats hats be another on the list of "alternatives"? reports the team wore its patriotic navy blue uniforms, which are usually reserved for Memorial Day, the Fourth of July and Labor Day.

Just the usual elite hatred of the military. Military men tend to be very conservative and they have a lot of guns.

20 August, 2011

Must not call Britain's rioting blacks 'jungle bunnies'

We read:
"A Tory councillor has been suspended after he made racist remarks about rioters. Bob Frost, who is also a secondary school maths teacher, described those involved in disturbances last week as 'jungle bunnies' on his Facebook page.

The 49-year-old posted the insult, referring to the riots in London on August 7, less than 24 hours after trouble flared in Tottenham, north London

The remark was removed from his Facebook page after he received a phone call from another Conservative party member. Mr Frost then wrote on Facebook: 'I have just had a phone call that accused me of racism for my above posting.

'Looking at the dictionary it would appear that the term jungle bunnies is perjorative [sic] and is a racist slur relating to African-Americans. 'Needless to say I did not mean to use any offensive racist term and was referring to the urban jungle.'

The councillor, who represents north Deal, added: 'As for the bunny bit it was originally animals but I thought people might object to me calling fellow humans this so I chose something I thought was innocuous and also cuddly.'

The councillor has been suspended from the party and an investigation into the comments has been launched before a panel decides what action to take.

"Bunnies" is a bit too kind. They were behaving like jungle beasts

Must not call a waiter a 'twerp'

We read:
"A diner was kicked out of a restaurant after tweeting that her waiter was a 'twerp'. Allison Matsu was having drinks at Down House, in Houston, Texas, on Sunday night when she posted the tweet, which finished with the hashtags #jackass and #jackoff.

The manager of the establishment was not working that night, but he read the online comment and called up to send her packing.

'Any business is allowed to set the tone of their establishment,' owner Chris Cusack told KPRC-TV. 'If you go to someone's house and start calling them names, I wouldn't really expect to stay too much longer after that.'

Matsu, who has nearly 2,000 followers and has won a Houston Press Web award for her late-night tweets, was annoyed after hearing the waiter bad-mouthing Bobby Heugel, another restaurant owner in the area. She decided to post her opinions while sitting at the bar.

Half an hour later Down House's general manager Forrest DeSpain called up and, she says, started shouting at her before telling her to leave.

"Twerp" is pretty mild. It just means an insignificant and contemptible person. The restaurant owner was within his rights to do what he did but a wiser man would have taken the comment as information about his staff that needed to be looked into. Instead he flew off the handle. Probably a restaurant to avoid.

19 August, 2011

Tennessee Woman Told to Remove American Flag Outside Her Optometry Office

We read:
"Dawn Kamin said she would expect opposition to the flying of an American flag in more liberal parts of the country – but not the suburbs of Memphis, Tenn. Kamin said she was ordered to remove an American flag she had posted outside her optometry office.

According to a letter sent to Dr. Kamin, the flag pole and the flag violated the bylaws of the business condominium group. She was told to take down the flag or face the consequences.

However, a spokesman did release an email to Fox News Radio noting that the Corporate Center Condominiums, run by Tesco Properties, prominently flies two American flags. “Placing additional flags in common areas in order to bring greater attention to a particular business is inappropriate,” the spokesman wrote.

Kamin said she was flying the flag to honor the military. “I have family in the military and we have really become aware of our freedoms and what our soldiers do for us,” she said.

Kamin demanded to see the business condominium’s bylaws, but she said so far Tesco Properties has not complied. “They didn’t give me anything in writing,” she said. “All they gave me were threats.”

A nasty lot by the sound of it.

Warning: Those Facebook rants can get you fired

We read:
"Fair Work Australia has upheld the right of an employer to sack a worker over an expletive-filled Facebook rant against a manager that was posted out of hours on his home computer.

In a case that highlights the hazy line between work and private lives, computer technician Damian O'Keefe was dismissed after posting on Facebook last year that he "wonders how the f *** work can be so f***ing useless and mess up my pay again. C***s are going down tomorrow."

Mr O'Keefe's employer, a Townsville franchise of the retail electrical goods business, The Good Guys, believed the post constituted a threat to Kelly Taylor, an operations manager responsible for processing the pay of employees. Mr O'Keefe admitted the target of his comments was Ms Taylor.

The day after the comments were posted, employer Troy Williams told Mr O'Keefe that "I am taking it you resigned. You can't work here - you made threats against us."

The tribunal's deputy president, Deidre Swan, said "common sense would dictate" that a worker could not publish insulting and threatening comments about another employee. "The fact that the comments were made on the applicant's home computer, out of work hours, does not make any difference," she said.

His threat of violence was certainly pushing his luck

18 August, 2011

Most of the British rioters were black

My totally "incorrect" heading above completely contradicts an impression that the media has laboured to build up. Most media stories about the British rioters highlight middle class whites. Blacks are rarely mentioned.

One hard-working geographer has however mapped out all the known data about the rioters and where they rioted and superimposed that map on maps of London demographics. He finds that the toxic combination is race and poverty. Poor blacks were the main culprits. Poverty alone was not an important factor as there was little rioting in poor white areas. The big riots were mostly in poor black areas and most of the rioters were poor blacks

His conclusion:
Both theoretical and empirical evidence shows that it is improper to disconnect the August 2011 riots from race and ethnic culture. It is, likewise, inappropriate to associate it with the uneducated, low-skilled white lower class ('chavs'). It was severely underrepresented in the riots, and did not produce riots in numerous poor non-black areas. None of the socioeconomic factors have the same predicting power as black ethnicity in this case. In fact, they are meaningless to the riots when not a correlate of black population.

Why the black community played such a prominent role in the riots may be disputed. But it is clear that role of the black community was greater than that of any other group, and it should be accordingly regarded in the media.

Some labor union hate speech

We read:
"Unions representing Verizon workers have appeared to upped the ante on what was already been a heated dispute between labor and management.

Now some think one Brooklyn CWA post has possibly crossed the line calling for, among other things, torture:

“The voice of a representative encourages members to deal harshly with ‘managers and scabs.’ ‘It is open season. Follow them safely, but when you get to a location, torture them, torture them with chants and noise. Be so loud that they can’t concentrate and wish they never got out of bed,’ says the recorded voice. Another part of the message states:

‘They are trying to break our union. Understand brothers and sisters, we can never let these [expletive] piece of [expletive] pigs break us. So, we are stepping up our efforts.’

The message stopped short of calling for physical violence, but it was removed after a NewsChannel 9 reporter called the CWA for comment.

They are probably entitled to say that stuff but when you read it, you understand why the vast majority of Americans want nothing to do with labor unions

17 August, 2011

VA: No freedom for anti-abortion speech

We read:
"In the past week, I have seen a white male in his early 30s standing near the Marine Corps Memorial on 50E/50W (Rosslyn exit) holding a large sign of with grotesque pictures of supposedly aborted fetuses at 10 weeks.

I have twice seen Arlington or U.S. Park police escorting this man away and asking him to take down the sign. I assume he does not have a permit or it is illegal to protest on federal grounds or in areas that may cause traffic disturbances.


The Assault on Online Privacy

We read:
"A dangerous bill has been approved by the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee that would ELMINIATE your online privacy. That's why I sent a letter to Congress using's Hands Off the Internet Campaign. I urge you to send a letter. You may borrow from or copy this...
I insist that you oppose HR 1981, the so-called "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act."

The very name of the bill is dishonest and offensive. It misleads the public into thinking the bill gives law enforcement expanded tools to protect children from pedophiles.

But actually, it gives law enforcement broad powers to examine ANYONE's Internet activities, for ANY reason. According to CNET (

* It would require commercial Internet providers "to store... customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses."

* Rep. Zoe Lofgren says this would create "a data bank of every digital act by every American" that would "let us find out where every single American visited Web sites."

* If the law passed, criminals would simply go to libraries or coffeehouses and use the Web anonymously, while law-abiding Americans would have their activities recorded.

In addition...

* ISP's will have to reconfigure their systems to accommodate the data retention requirements -- an expense they will surely pass on to their customers (to you)

* Combing through mostly irrelevant records of innocent Americans is a highly INEFFICIENT form of catching criminals

As Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation puts it, HR 1981, "would treat every Internet user like a criminal and threaten the online privacy and free speech rights of every American... Such a scheme would be as objectionable to our Founders as the requiring of licenses for printing presses or the banning of anonymous pamphlets." (

The First and Fourth Amendments guarantee my right to anonymity and to privacy. Both disappear if the government tracks my online activities.

Uphold your oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Oppose HR 1981!

16 August, 2011

San Francisco officials cut off phone signals to train passengers to thwart protest over police killing

We read:
"An illegal, Orwellian violation of free-speech rights? Or just a smart tactic to protect train passengers from rowdy would-be demonstrators during a busy evening commute?

Those are some of the questions being asked in San Francisco after officials of the Bay Area Rapid Transit cut off underground mobile phone signals at several stations for a few hours last Thursday.

Commuters at stations from downtown to near the city's main airport were affected as BART officials sought to tactically thwart a planned protest over the recent fatal shooting of a 45-year-old man by transit police.

The decision has been questioned by civil rights and legal experts and drew backlash from one transit board member who was taken aback by the move.

"I'm just shocked that they didn't think about the implications of this. We really don't have the right to be this type of censor," said Lynette Sweet, who serves on BART's board of directors. "In my opinion, we've let the actions of a few people affect everybody. And that's not fair."

BART Deputy Police Chief Benson Fairow said the issue boiled down to the public's well-being. "It wasn't a decision made lightly. This wasn't about free speech. It was about safety," Mr Fairow told KTVU-TV on Friday.

BART's tactic drew immediate comparisons to authoritarianism, including acts by the former president of Egypt to squelch protests demanding an end to his rule. Authorities there cut internet and mobile phone services in the country for days earlier this year. He left office shortly thereafter.

Aaron Caplan, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who specialises in free-speech issues, was equally critical, saying BART clearly violated the rights of demonstrators and other passengers.


Sherlock Holmes Book Axed From 6th Grade Reading Lists After Anti-Mormon Claims

We read:
"A Virginia county has decided to remove Sherlock Holmes’ first adventure from sixth-grade reading lists after its contents were deemed inappropriate and offensive to Mormons. Brette Stevenson, a parent of a Henley Middle School student, had complained that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s “A Study in Scarlet” is derogatory toward Mormons.

Following a study conducted by a special commission and two board discussions regarding the matter, the Albemarle County School Board voted Thursday night to remove the book. The committee commissioned to study the novel said in a report that it’s not age-appropriate for sixth-graders.

More than 20 former Henley students turned out to oppose the book’s removal from the lists. Rising Western Albemarle High School ninth-grader Quinn Legallo-Malone spoke during public comment to oppose removal of the book. He called the work “the best book I have read so far.”

The book includes a flashback to 1847 Utah that recounts the actions of a Mormon community when a non-Mormon man wants to marry the daughter of one of its members. The USA Today highlights the controversial text (from Chapter 3 of the book):

"(John Ferrier) had always determined, deep down in his resolute heart, that nothing would ever induce him to allow his daughter to wed a Mormon. Such marriage he regarded as no marriage at all, but as a shame and a disgrace. Whatever he might think of the Mormon doctrines, upon that one point he was inflexible. He had to seal his mouth on the subject, however, for to express an unorthodox opinion was a dangerous matter in those days in the Land of the Saints."

But you can say how evil early American Christians were, of course. Zinn's "People's history" is a widely used textbook and you would get the impression that Christians past and present were Fascist monsters from it.

15 August, 2011

Men from poor families tend to be uglier

How do you like that headline? Given the "all men are equal" gospel that guides the political Left, it is just about impossible to say it. It is terminally "incorrect". I might be just about the only person capable of making such a dastardly statement in public. It might hurt feelings!

Yet it seems to be true. There has just appeared in the academic literature a well-founded study which shows that.

So how have the media treated that finding? Read here if you want a laugh. They skate all around it and at no point make the blunt point that I have made.

And the scientists themselves did not repoort their findings bluntly either. All we got from them was some near incomprehensible waffle and speculation.

Yet the only statistically significant correlation in the reported data was between male facial symmetry (a major factor in attractiveness/ugliness) and coming from a poor background. And the correlation (-.44) was quite large as such correlations go. That was the one finding that they had to report.

I go into it all in more detail here.

Must not tell the truth about Mohammed????

"The radio presenter Michael Smith is being investigated by the media watchdog over his assertion that the prophet Muhammad "married a nine-year-old and consummated it when she was 11".

The Australian Communications and Media Authority confirmed in a letter dated July 21 that it was investigating the remarks by the 2UE afternoon host.

Adem Cetinay, a Muslim from Bossley Park, complained that Mr Smith was inciting hatred against Muslims through his July 5 broadcast. "By making this remark he is asserting that God's messenger is a paedophile. This is racist, it's stupid and it is not needed on air," he wrote to the station's program director, Peter Brennan.

Mr Brennan replied that Mr Smith had made the "throwaway line". "However, at no time did he refer to any Prophet's name, nor did he use the word 'Prophet'. He did not refer to anybody whatsoever in the broadcast," he wrote.


14 August, 2011

WA: Judge halts search for cartoonist who embarrassed cops

We read:
"A King County judge has temporarily blocked a police search for the person who posted anonymous videos embarrassing officers, in which robo-like cartoon characters banter about sexual relationships and internal affairs.

King County Superior Court Judge James Cayce ordered the stay Tuesday on two search warrants he previously signed for the Renton Police Department. Officers have been searching for the identity of the cartoonist for months.

The stay came after Seattle attorney Harish Bharti filed a motion to quash the warrants, in a move he described as a fight to preserve the First Amendment. "The cartoonist and everybody else have a constitutionally protected right to be anonymous and exercise their free speech and expression," Bharti said. "This abuse of police power is beyond belief."

In April, Renton Police Chief Kevin Milosevich learned of eight videos on YouTube featuring computer-voiced cartoon characters rambling about office politics and internal cop investigations, according to an affidavit for one of the warrants. There's also some chatter about an officer dating a suspect.

The videos mentioned no city, department or full names. But police built a cyberstalking case against the videomaker and said the cartoons refer to actual internal investigations and target three female Renton police employees.

"This is a victory for our free-speech rights," Bharti said after the order was issed Tuesday.

Sounds like the cops are desperate to quash hints of their own corruption. Video at link.

Censorship by police in Australia

We read:
"A video showing an anti-terrorism squad officer stripped to his underpants and gyrating his groin in the face of a drunk Aboriginal colleague has been suppressed at the request of Queensland Police.

The suppression order comes ahead of the release of a major review of police disciplinary procedures, raising further questions about the culture within Queensland’s police force and why the officer was not sacked.

The security camera footage, taken at the McDonald’s restaurant in the south-east Queensland town of Kingaroy on March 23 last year, shows Constable Daniel Kennedy straddling the Aboriginal officer while nine other non-indigenous officers watched on.

A Queensland Police report into the incident described Constable Kennedy actions thus: "You approached …removed your shorts, lifted your left leg and gyrated your groin in front of his face."

The Special Emergency Response Team officer’s actions were described as “appalling” by Deputy Commissioner Ian Stewart, who presided over an internal police disciplinary action last November.

"I have seen the footage and I am appalled by your behaviour … I am sure that had members of the public witnessed your behaviour, they would have been affronted by it … In your case, not only did you commit an act resulting in your conviction for a public nuisance offence but, if observed by a member of the public, it had the potential not only to be seen as offensive but also taunting the dignity of [the other officer], together with racial overtones."

Not that police coverups are anything new anywhere in the world. But in this case a conviction has been recorded and it is normal for embargoed information to be released after that. The cops obviously fear that they would have to fire their goon if people could see what he did.

13 August, 2011

Must not even ASSOCIATE with people who criticize homosexual behavior

We read:
"Howard Shultz, the CEO of Starbucks, has unexpectedly backed out of a planned address at this week’s Willow Creek Global Leadership Summit.

Some are questiong if Shultz’s decision, which is still not reflected on the summit’s web site, is based upon a recent petition that was launched by Asher Huey, a liberal political consultant. In his petition, Huey labeled the house of worship “anti-gay” and railed against Shultz’s participation.

In describing his initiative on the progressive web site, Huey writes:
The church that is sponsoring the event on August 11th and 12th has a long history anti-gay persecution. For decades the church was a member of Exodus International, the organization that seeks to cure homosexuality through dangerous conversion therapy.

The church split ways with the group, but in doing so stated that it wasn’t a change in belief but a change in focus. The church also has their own “outreach” programs to the LGBT community to spread their anti-lgbt message.
While questions are certainly being raised about the petition‘s involvement in Shultz’s decision not to attend, at present Huey has only collected 787 signatures (and that’s after a week of the poll being posted).


Blacks protest Confederate flags at Ga. cemetery

We read:
"Black protesters called Wednesday for removing Confederate flags from a monument in an Atlanta cemetery where they recently buried the late president of a civil rights group co-founded by Martin Luther King Jr.

The flags at the Westview Cemetery fly over a sculpture of a Southern solider that memorializes the 400 Confederate veterans buried in the cemetery. The flagpole has an early version of the Confederate national flag and also its last flag, which contains the familiar stars-and-bars design carried by Confederate soldiers in the battlefield.

Cemetery officials say they understand the complaints, but added they cannot take down the flags since the cemetery years ago sold the rights to erect and maintain the monument to Confederate veterans groups. The Sons of Confederate Veterans, whose members trace their ancestry to Southerners who fought in the Civil War from 1861 to 1865, says the flags will remain.


12 August, 2011

Some predictable nonsense from Indymedia, San Francisco branch

We read:
"In America, people of color and Muslims are fair game. It's longstanding policy based on prejudicial attitudes, stereotypes, deep-seated racism, and notions of corrupted Western values, high-mindedness, and moral superiority.

Post-9/11, in fact, Muslims are perceived as barbaric, violent, uncivilized, gun-toting terrorists, easily targeted, accused, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned - not for wrongdoing, for their faith in American at the wrong time. As a result, it's no surprise that when suspects are named, media reports automatically convict them in the court of public opinion.

No matter that Islamic tenets teach love, not hate; peace, not violence; charity, not selfishness; tolerance, not terrorism; or that Islam, Christianity and Judaism have common roots. You'd never know it in today's climate of hate and fear at a time America wages global wars on Islam, including at home.

Apparently it was love, peace, charity and tolerance that knocked down the twin towers! They sure have trouble with reality down San Francisco way.

Lying Leftist hate speech against opponents of Jihad

Comments by by Robert Spencer:
"When Slogans Beget Slaughter,” by Ishaan Tharoor, was published by Time Magazine on August 6:
Last year on Sept. 11, I stood at Ground Zero as hundreds of people shouted obscenities against Muslims and Islam.
There were actually many thousands of people there, as photos attest. But however many people were there, were “hundreds of people” really shouting “obscenities against Muslims and Islam”? Absolutely not. In a crowd of that size it is impossible to ensure that everyone is civil and polite, but our speakers set the tone, and none of them indulged in or encouraged any “obscenities” whatsoever. The videos are readily available on YouTube.

Tharoor here is defaming not just me, but all the decent people who turned out to protest the desecration that is the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero. And his whole argument here depends on this defamatory charge. But I’d like to see him substantiate it.
They were gathered to protest the proposed construction of a Muslim-run interfaith community center nearby, which had earned the inaccurate moniker Ground Zero mosque.
A “Muslim-run interfaith community.” We were actually the ones who suggested that if the Ground Zero Mosque organizers were serious about reaching out to non-Muslims, they could include a synagogue, a church, and a Hindu temple inside their center. This suggestion, like everything we said, was arrogantly brushed aside with more smear charges of “hate” — as Tharoor is charging in this piece.
The rally was conducted by a motley crew of Islamophobes, among them several European visitors. Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who has called for a ban on immigration to the Netherlands from Muslim countries, denounced the arrival of a “new Mecca” on the shores of what was once New Amsterdam….
Actually he didn’t say that at all. Watch his speech here. He was actually lauding New York’s tradition of tolerance, and said that if New York were open only to people of one persuasion, it would not be New York, but would be like Mecca.

Note where the lies were published: Time Magazine -- a Green/Left/Muslim mouthpiece, with all the truth and accuracy you can expect of that.

11 August, 2011

Judge orders husband to take down blog about his ex-wife

We read:
"When 42-year-old Anthony Morelli got divorced from his wife, he didn’t just get mad - he got even. Mr Morelli of Bucks County, Pennsylvania started a blog in which he heaped scorn upon his ex-wife and laid bare the secrets of their marriage. Amongst the more choice insults for his former partner were that she looked like ‘Jabba the Hut’ and ‘suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder’.

But it all came to an end when his ex-wife Allison found out about it and complained to a judge who ordered the blog be taken down.

Mr Morelli, who shares custody of his two sons aged 10 and 12 with his ex-wife, lost a court battle over the decision but has now appealed on the basis that it challenges his First Amendment Rights.

‘The judge’s order is a classic example of an overly broad and unenforceable prior restraint on free speech,’ said his lawyer Kevin Handy. ‘The order is constitutionally over broad because it clearly prohibits speech that is protected by the First Amendment.’


Giants Manager Calls Radio Host's 'Illegal Alien' Comment 'Racist'?

Illegal aliens are a race?
America's favorite past-time is once again getting thrown into the political hardball debate over immigration. Giants manager Bruce Bochy has criticized a nationally syndicated radio host for what he says is a "racist" comment about San Francisco reliever Ramon Ramírez.

Radio host Tony Bruno referred to Ramírez as an "illegal alien." He also called Bochy a "coward" in a Twitter post following Friday night's benches-clearing brawl between the Phillies and Giants.

Ramírez is from the Dominican Republic. He has declined to discuss the brawl but said Sunday he is in the U.S. legally and wouldn't be able to work in the major leagues otherwise.

Bruno's show is broadcast on local station KNBR 1050 AM. He later deleted his tweet and apologized on his Facebook page.

Bruno explains that his post was more about the concept of baseball's "unwritten rules." "What I posted was reaction to something that goes beyond Giants-Phillies rivalry baseball. Managers who order a pitcher to throw at someone to "send a message" for whatever the infraction, is an act of cowardice," he wrote in the letter.

"Since when did "illegal alien" become a obscene swear word? It is Not offensive to say or to hear but IS an insult to anyone who has a right to be in the U.S....You don't [owe] anyone an apology except Mr. Ramirez," Matthew Beggs posted on Bruno's Facebook.


10 August, 2011

U.S. Army Agrees to Host, Pay $50,000 Toward Concert for Atheists

We read:
"In a win for military atheists (or “free thinkers” as they like to be called), U.S. Army officials have come on board to support “Rock Beyond Belief” — a concert being planned for nonbelievers and their enthusiasts at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. This development, which is sure to appease atheists, came after some church-state separation groups petitioned the Secretary of the Army last month.

These groups were upset following support for a Christian concert that was also held at the military installment last September. They claimed that the Evangelical concert gave “selective benefits” to religious groups.

This announcement comes after a group of atheists and skeptics came together at Fort Bragg earlier this year to form Military Atheists and Secular Humanists, or MASH. The group, which meets regularly in homes and bars outside of the military base, has been working toward official recognition as a “faith” group.

The “Rock Beyond Belief” concert was originally supposed to be held last April, but the event was cancelled when the garrison commander refused to authorize it. It was then that the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and other groups chimed in. Now, the event is back on and is slated for March 31, 2012.

Amusing that they want their group defined as a "faith". I guess it is a faith for them. Otherwise the concert is a celebration of nothing!

I am an atheist but I don't need recognition of that. I just go about my business and what other people believe is up to them. So I guess I am a real atheist, unlike the mixed up kids above.

"Bullying" M&Ms

"The Advertising Standards Bureau spent two months investigating the social interactions on talking M&Ms in commercials - after viewers complained the ads could lead to an increase in childhood bullying.

An ABS spokeswoman said the bureau spent just under 60 days investigating the television commercial, which featured a red M&M taunting his candy cohorts, after receiving a number of objections to the message portrayed by the talking chocolates.

One complainant said the advertisement gave children the impression bullying was OK. "M&M's is the most influential product on the market and needs to ensure the message that children receives is positive and assisting in their growth and development," the complainant said.

"When marketing a product the message should be about development of our children not showing them that the red M&M can dominate the rest of the group. Children will see this as a normal way of life as the M&Ms portray to them those they mix with at school."

After deliberating for two months, the ABS determined the advertisement was "humorous rather than bullying".


Video here

9 August, 2011

Must not refer to Obama's black friends

We read:
"A Fox News website is being called out over possible racial overtones in an article about President Obama's White House birthday celebration. The article, posted on and titled 'Obama's Hip-Hop BBQ Didn't Create Jobs,' drew hundreds of comments.

Most were from users who found the article inaccurate, racist or both. Splashed below the headline were photos of former NBA star Charles Barkley, President Obama, comedian Chris Rock and rapper Jay-Z.

Not pictured were any of the celebration’s white partygoers, like actor Tom Hanks, former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel or Hillary Clinton.

When contacted by The New York Times, a spokeswoman for Fox News would not say whether the article went along with the site’s standards. Bill Shine, the executive vice president for programming, said the 'hip hop BBQ' reference was taken from story that mentioned Mr Obama’s guests dancing to ‘hip hop songs’ in the East Room.

Just Leftists looking for the tiniest thing to criticize

'F word' used in fashion poster

"Teen fashion label Dangerfield has created a stir with a publicly visible advertising campaign that features the F word.

Posters spotted at Melbourne's Southbank yesterday, bearing the slogan "DANGERFIELD F-- OFF WINTER SALE", are clearly visible to pedestrians and drivers travelling along the busy thoroughfare of City Rd. The brazen ad campaign comes while Victorians are threatened with $238.90 on-the-spot fines for using foul language in public.

The Victorian Parents Council's executive officer Christine Delamore labelled the poster inappropriate and crass. "The (F) word has become overused these days - I don't think it has a place in the fashion world,” she said. “I'm surprised they're allowed to use it."

On Dangerfield's Facebook page young girls expressed their excitement at the sale, with one user quipping: "My life is complete". A young man posted a comment inviting the girls to take advantage of the sale at the Dangerfield counters in Myer department stores, where he said he worked.

I think the poster is stupid and unpleasant but I don't try to impose my preferences on others.

8 August, 2011

New York Times Columnist Apologizes to Tea Party Republicans

Below is a pretty good summary of Leftist hate speech so I am reproducing most of it. I personally think that such obviously exaggerated abuse of conservatives is more likely to induce distrust of the speaker than anything else
"During the last few months of heated political debate ugly and at times slanderous statements have been routinely directed towards those associated with the Tea Party. One New York Times columnist is recanting his words:
“That anger reached its apex on Tuesday, when I wrote a column comparing the Tea Party Republicans to terrorists. The words I chose were intemperate and offensive to many, and I’ve been roundly criticized. I was a hypocrite, the critics said, for using such language when on other occasions I’ve called for a more civil politics. In the cool light of day, I agree with them. I apologize.”
The apology came after a rambling few paragraphs of the columnist, Joe Nocera, explaining his liberal roots in Providence, RI, and how his views have evolved to the point where he now sees himself as a pragmatist who favors common-sense solutions over ideology. The Tuesday column for which Nocera was originally criticized was entitled “Tea Party’s War on America,” and included such common-sense one-liners as:
“These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people.”

“Inflicting more pain on their countrymen doesn’t much bother the Tea Party Republicans, as they’ve repeatedly proved.”

“For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests. But rest assured: They’ll have them on again soon enough.”
Newsbusters Scott Whitlock has pointed out that Nocera‘s comments just fit the norm in relation to the paper’s habit of comparing congressional GOP members to murderers.
“On July 25, columnist Nicholas Kristof used similar language. Also speaking of the Tea Party, he declared, ‘Well, wake up to the national security threat. Only it’s not coming from abroad, but from our own domestic extremists.’

Kristof insisted that the biggest threat to America ‘comes from budget machinations, and budget maniacs, at home.’

On July 4th, 2011, another columnist, David Brooks, proclaimed the Tea Party has ‘no sense of moral decency.’

Finally, on June 26, columnist Thomas Friedman referred to the group of conservatives as the ‘Hezbollah faction’ of the GOP.”
I guess the other columnists may be waiting to issue an apology from the entire paper.

While Nocera’s regrets may satisfy some, it’s likely that many still feel he is just one of many who owe an apology. Earlier in the week National Review’s Jonah Goldberg perhaps summed up the frustration of many Americans who feel that conservative Republicans and individuals who affiliate with the Tea Party have been demonized by many commentators, and that the media has unfairly covered vindictive statements made by liberal politicians:
“All over the place, conservative Republicans are ‘hostage takers’ ‘terrorists’ and ‘traitors.‘ They want to ’end life as we know it on this planet,’ says Nancy Pelosi. They are betraying the Founders, too. Chris Matthews all but signs up for the ‘Make an Ass of Yourself’ contest at the State Fair. Joe Nocera writes today that ‘the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests.’ Lord knows what Krugman and Olbermann have said.
Then last night, on the very day Gabby Giffords heroically returns to cast her first vote since that tragic attack seven months ago, the vice president of the United States calls the Republican party a bunch of terrorists.


‘In Jesus’ Name’: NC Officials Plan to Take Prayer Ban Battle to U.S. Supreme Court

We read:
"A court-ordered ban on prayers that end “in Jesus’ name?” It’s now a reality for public officials in North Carolina. On July 29, the state’s Forsyth County Board of Commissioners was dealt a major blow. The 4th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, ruled against the county, granting favor to two county residents who claimed they were offended when they heard the words “in Jesus’ name” prayed aloud during a board meeting. WXII-TV has more:

The 2-1 decision upheld a lower court ruling and was a victory for Janet Joyner and Constance Blackmon, who had sued following the December 2007 commission meeting before which a local religious leader prayed. The pastor thanked God for sending Jesus to die for the sins of mankind and concluded with “in Jesus’ name.” Beliefnet provides written responses from the justices:

“Legislative prayer must strive to be nondenominational so long as that is reasonably possible — it should send a signal of welcome rather than exclusion. It should not reject the tenets of other faiths in favor of just one,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in his ruling.

But, Judge Paul Niemeyer felt differently. Instead, he focused upon the fact that the county was open to adherents of any religious faith praying at meetings. Considering this fact, Forsyth County was not, in his view, wrong for allowing the prayer. He wrote:

“I respectfully submit that we must maintain a sacred respect of each religion, and when a group of citizens comes together, as does the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners, and manifests that sacred respect — allowing the prayers of each to be spoken in the religion’s own voice — we must be glad to let it be.

Groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AUSCS) and the ACLU praised the court’s ruling. The ADL called the decision “a clear victory for religious freedom.”

According to Beliefnet, seven of the eight Forsyth County commissioners involved in the case say that they will accept an offer for representation from Christian attorneys. The Alliance Defense Fund will handle their case, picking up all costs and seeking to take the debate all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the prayer had been led by a Muslim and he had included the usual "Peace be upon him" about Mohammed, I wonder how would the ACLU have taken that?

7 August, 2011

Politician sues over criticism of how he voted in Congress

Because the statements about him misrepresented his votes, he claims
In a case that could test the bounds of free speech, a former Democratic congressman has been allowed to proceed with his lawsuit against a prominent pro-life group that he claims contributed to his election defeat by spreading falsehoods about his record on abortion issues.

A federal judge in Ohio ruled Monday that former Rep. Steve Driehaus' defamation suit against the Susan B. Anthony List can go forward. The former Ohio congressman claims the group "disseminated lies" about him, effectively costing him his job -- as well as inflicting "reputational" and "economic" harm.

The complaint stems from statements and advertisements claiming Driehaus, who considers himself a pro-life lawmaker, voted for taxpayer-funded abortion when he backed the federal health care overhaul.

But the case raises apparent free-speech concerns, considering politicians frequently endure fierce and sustained criticism from multiple groups in the heat of a campaign and, from time to time, lose because of that criticism. Even the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio filed a brief on a related, but separate, case last fall arguing that "the people have an absolute right to criticize their public officials."

Emily Buchanan, director of the Susan B. Anthony List, said the case could have a chilling effect on speech. "The claim of defamation is outrageous. Driehaus is a public official, and we should be able to criticize him," she told "And all of this debate should be taking place in the public square. A court or a judge should not be determining" a dispute over abortion policy.

If he succeeds in this, it would set the precedent that false statements in politics are actionable. The whole Democratic party could end up in court!

Must not let anybody see how brain-dead even active Leftists can be

We read:
"So much for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, right?

During a debt-deal related protest on Capitol Hill attended by 9/11 conspiracy theorist Van Jones and various union and left-wing advocacy groups, liberal interlopers attempted to block MRCTV from interviewing protesters on the basis that MRCTV is “conservative” media, hence, would make the activists “look bad” with trick “editing.”

What follows in the ten-plus minute long video is a seemingly desperate attempt by left-wing interlopers to thwart a free press from conducting interviews with liberal activists. Rather than editing, however, perhaps the fear among liberals is that a conservative might ask the interview subject challenging questions — questions the subject might not be able to answer correctly.

Video at link

6 August, 2011

Must not criticize Obama at an American university

We read:
"The University of Tennessee bookstore has quit selling packages of breath mints that satirize President Barack Obama. Officials pulled the product, which were called 'dissapoint-mints,' after state Rep. Joe Armstrong (a Democrat) visited the bookstore and told the manager he found the mints offensive.

Armstrong told The Knoxville News Sentinel that UT uses federal and state funds and should be sensitive to what he called 'politically specific products.'

Bookstore director David Kent said the bookstore previously carried mints that satirized former President George W. Bush and said no offense was intended."

Universities were once the place where governments were most likely to be challenged and mocked, and that was defended as right and proper. But criticizing a black socialist is sacrilege, of course.

Hanging of 'Truck Nuts' Grows into a Free Speech Debate

We read:
"'Don't touch my junk,' is taking on new meaning. "Truck nuts," fake bull testicles made of plastic or metal that drivers hang on the back of their pickups to make a truck look more manly, have been around for years. Some find them funny, while others find them offensive, prompting at least three states to try to ban them -- unsuccessfully.

But a recent case in South Carolina is fueling debate over whether these ornaments violate a state's indecency laws and if attempting to regulate them infringes on freedom of speech.

On July 5, Virginia Tice, 65, from Bonneau, S.C. pulled her pickup truck into a local gas station with red, fake testicles dangling from the trailer hitch. The town's police chief, Franco Fuda, pulled up and asked her to remove the plastic testicles.

When she refused, he wrote her a $445 ticket saying that she violated South Carolina’s obscene bumper sticker law.

Tice lawyered up and said that she was preparing to challenge Fuda in court. But before she could ask for a jury trial, Fuda, in a rare move, beat her to it. Fuda says he is pushing for a jury trial and hopes the outcome will clarify the state’s obscenity laws, leaving no room for misinterpretation.

Scott Bischoff, Tice’s lawyer, says his client is not bowing down because “this whole thing was caused by the arresting officer, who is arbitrarily interpreting a statute incorrectly.” Bischoff will argue whether these large, red, plastic testicles are “really an accurate depiction of a human body part.”

“He is nuts,” says Jay Bender, a lawyer and professor at the University of South Carolina, referring to Fuda and his interpretation of the law. Bender says although tasteless and stupid, they are not illegal, and adds, “Chief Fuda is abusing his arrest powers.” He says the statute is very clear about what material is obscene and “it doesn’t have anything to do with artificial bull testicles.”

Hudson believes Tice and her lawyer can make a good case the South Carolina law is “unconstitutionally vague and unconstitutionally broad, and it violates the First Amendment.”

Hudson detailed many cases where law enforcement officials cited individuals for the content of their bumper stickers, and in the majority of those cases, a judge tossed them out because “the First Amendment protects a great deal of offensive expression.”

Police are very prone to taking an over-broad view of their powers so one hopes that this cop is reined in

5 August, 2011

A choice collection of Leftist hate speech

Jeff Jacoby lists some of their recent efforts:
DID VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN slander Tea Party Republicans by saying they "acted like terrorists" in the protracted debate over raising the federal debt ceiling? To use such language would be contemptible, especially in the wake of Anders Breivik's twin massacres in Norway and just weeks before the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 atrocities. Biden claims he never said it, and out of respect for his office I'd like to say I believe him.

But I don't.

Politico reported Monday afternoon that at a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic caucus the vice president joined in the "hot rhetoric" against GOP conservatives, specifically agreeing with one Democrat who described them as a "group of terrorists [who] have made it impossible to spend any money." Biden's office initially refused to confirm or deny the comment, but after it became public, he went on TV to disavow it: "I did not use the 'terrorism' word," he told CBS.

What makes Biden's denial so implausible is that liberals and Democrats have been flinging the "terrorist" slur across the aisle for weeks. Do you remember President Obama's call, after the deadly shooting in Tucson last January, for "more civility in our public discourse?" Remember how he deplored the urge "to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do?" Many on the left have apparently forgotten, to judge by their zeal for linking the Tea Party's views on the debt ceiling to the extremism that leads fanatics to kill.

Listen, for example, to former Obama administration official Steven Rattner, speaking on MSNBC last week: "These Tea Party guys are, like, strapped with dynamite, standing in the middle of Times Square at rush hour and saying, 'Either you do it my way, or we're going to blow you up, ourselves up, and the whole country up with us.'"

Or to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, warning that "if sane Republicans do not stand up to this Hezbollah faction in their midst, the Tea Party will take the GOP on a suicide mission."

To the New York Times's Thomas Friedman, Tea Party conservatives are like Hezbollah terrorists hell-bent on a suicide bombing.

Or to Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House Minority Whip, talking about "Russian roulette" with loaded chambers, and how House Republicans "want to shoot every bullet they have at the president."

Or to former Ted Kennedy aide William Yeomans, now an American University law professor, who says labeling Tea Party Republicans "hostage-takers" doesn't go far enough, since "they have now become full-blown terrorists."

In the course of the debt-ceiling showdown, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that GOP resistance would force the government into "a Sophie's choice. Who do you save?" -- a Godwinian reference to the movie in which Meryl Streep plays a mother able to rescue only one of her children from death in a Nazi concentration camp. Republicans and Tea Party members also found themselves compared to pro-apartheid Afrikaaners, to the Ku Klux Klan, to arsonists. And, over and over again, to terrorists.

(See the original for links)

Holy Mother Ganga defamed

I have to have a bit of a laugh about this. I am myself exceedingly pro-Indian. I have four of them living with me in my large house. But there is no doubt that Holy Mother Ganga (the Ganges river) is unbelievably polluted. It is a sewer and junkyard for untold millions of people. So the Australian broadcaster below was speaking the plain truth. But, as we know, the truth may "offend"
Sorry is not a word you usually associate with spicy-tongued AGT judge Kyle Sandilands.

After upsetting Magda Szubanski, Jewish people and Megan Gale, the radio shock jock was left sweating yesterday after the Hindu community took him to task for recently slamming the Ganges as "a junkyard" and India as "a s---hole", the Herald Sun reported.

President of the Universal Society of Hinduism, Rajan Zed, urged the Australian Media and Communications Authority to take "appropriate action" over the gaffe.

Steering clear of "sorry", the Hour of Power Fox FM favourite backtracked: "I'm apologising. Anyone that's Indian that listens to this show knows that I love Indians ... I don't discriminate. I love everyone.

"I just made the mistake that the river, which, to me, looks polluted, I said it was a junkyard and I did not realise that it was holy."


4 August, 2011

More Leftist hate speech

We read:
"Vice President Joe Biden has been heavily criticised over reports he compared Tea Party Republicans to 'terrorists' during the debt-ceiling negotiations.

Officials said Mr Biden made the comments during a heated conversation with Democrat House members who were angry that Republicans got too much from the 11th hour deal.

Pennsylvania Representative Mike Doyle reportedly told the vice president that 'the tea party acted like terrorists in threatening to blow up the economy'.

Mr Biden has denied using the word and said he did not agree with the sentiment. He told CBS: 'I did not use the terrorism word - what happened was there were some people who said they felt like they were being held hostage by terrorists.

The comment sparked a furious reaction from Republicans. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, one of the most outspoken Tea Party politicians, told Fox News: 'With the president holding the American economy hostage, I would prefer to think of myself as a freedom fighter.'


Free speech fight at Melbourne university: Fired lecturer beats the bureaucracy

"The champagne was flowing freely in local art circles this morning after sacked RMIT lecturer Steve Cox -- feted internationally for his searing portraits of murderous social decline?—?chalked up a free speech triumph against his former employer in the Magistrates’ Court.

Cox’s tussles with School of Art head Elizabeth Grierson began when he posted images and comments critical of Grierson and the administration on the popular “Save Art from RMIT” Facebook page, which urges members to “vent your thoughts and frustrations”.

The page says the fine art course is “under threat” and that “teaching hours, teachers, facilities & courses are being cut”, leading to its global blackballing.

In early February, following his sacking for disciplinary reasons, Cox posted a photo-shopped image of Grierson with the title “Her Legacy Shall Be Ashes” and another caricature called “Grierson Out”.

The rancour increased after Cox took the fight to his personal Facebook page, which unlike most profiles is set to public and viewable by anyone. Last month, University lawyers issued an interim intervention order preventing him from posting any references to Grierson anywhere on Facebook and from physically approaching the RMIT building in Melbourne’s CBD.

But in yesterday’s out-of-court settlement, highlighting the vexed issues of modern day cyberstalking, the university was forced into an humiliating backdown, agreeing not to visit Cox’s personal Facebook page for the next 20 years. For his part, Cox will remove three Facebook entries and agree not to post anything “with malice” in the future. The clear legal implication is that if someone doesn’t want to be offended online they should avert their gaze.

Cox: “I’m now free to say anything about RMIT that I want. She’s not allowed to go to my Facebook page for 20 years which is great.”

Cox was well prepared for yesterday’s hearing, tapping crack silk Tim North and calling on former Queensland Art Gallery director and current Australian Commissioner for the Venice Biennale Doug Hall for expert testimony. When the university got wind of the dual offensive, they quickly backed down.


3 August, 2011

The old "tar baby" nonsense again

We read:
""Tar Baby" -- from time to time, this ugly racially charged phrase has come up in our political discourse.

Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO) used the term to describe President Obama in a statewide radio interview on Friday. You can listen to that interview here, which we examined on my KKZN-AM760 radio show this morning. Here's the key excerpt:

LAMBORN: Even if some people say "well, the Republicans should have done this, or should have done that," they will hold the President responsible. Now, I don't even want to be associated with him, it's like touching a, a tar baby and you get know you're stuck and you're part of the problem and you can't get away.

Tellingly, this openly derogatory epithet comes from not just any old politician. Lamborn is a United States congressman from Colorado Springs -- one of the most conservative Tea-Party-loving districts in America. In the hard-core right-wing political circles he runs in, describing a black person as a "tar baby" is probably more than acceptable -- it may even be celebrated, especially when aimed at a political opponent like President Obama.

The tar baby in the original story was not a person of any color, black or white. It was a lump of sticky tar. So using the term implies nothing about any person either. And it was clearly the stickiness and not the color that Rep. Lamborn was referring to.

It's just Leftist desperation to find "racism" among conservatives that lies behind the fuss. Extended commentary on the matter here.

The "hate speech" emanating from Australian conservatives

Anything can be "inflammatory" if the Left say so, apparently
"Last week, the New York Times ran a headline depicting Breivik as a "Christian extremist" while other media outlets have labelled him a "white extremist". Breivik is certainly white - so much so that he is said to have undergone plastic surgery to look like an Aryan Nazi. But he does not belong to any Christian church and he has condemned both the Catholic and Protestant faiths.

In Australia, some left-wing commentators have focused on the fact that Breivik cited some well-known Australians in his manifesto - Peter Costello, John Howard, Cardinal George Pell, former Liberal MP Ross Cameron and historian Keith Windschuttle. It is easy to score ideological points against political opponents who have been cited with approval by a mass murderer. However, a reading of Breivik's manifesto reveals that the Australians named have nothing to be defensive about.

Costello is quoted as declaring that Australian Muslim leaders should denounce terrorism and Howard is referred to as stating that Islamist migrants to Australia should adapt to Australian ways. Cardinal Pell is cited as expressing concern about invocations to violence in the Koran and about the deeply anti-Christian views held by some secularists. Cameron's citation turns on his view that young men should commit to women and agree to have children. And Windschuttle is mentioned as someone who is disturbed about an anti-Western culture in many of our universities. That is all.

All of these comments are considered. None has provoked acts of violence in Australia.

One problem with the reaction by sections of the left to the Norway murders is that it is intolerant in itself. If the likes of Costello, Howard, Pell, Cameron and Windschuttle cannot say what they said, there would be no free debate at all.


2 August, 2011

Must not criticize McDonald’s?

Not if you are a conservative, anyway. Leftists never stop criticizing McDonald's and trying to boycott it -- and that's OK, of course
"Lenny McAllister has been a conservative talk-show host on WVON-AM. He’s also been a mentor to 21-year-old Jentri Casaberry.

Casaberry took time off from his McDonald’s night manager job to be at the bedside of his premature son during the final hours of his life. The baby died in just the first week of life. Casaberry says McDonald’s then fired him for not showing up to work.

The word made its way to McAllister who shared the story with listeners, telling them to take a “holiday” from patronizing McDonald’s franchises owned by the operator who fired Casaberry.

For speaking out against McDonald’s, a long time advertiser with the radio station, McAllister then lost his job.

The Root, an online news source “founded in 2008 under the leadership of Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr.” (beer summit), now reports that the Tea Party and NAACP is working together to take on the radio station

“Now the Chicago Far South Suburban branch of the NAACP is planning to protest the station to help McAllister win his job back, said branch’s president, David L. Lowery Jr. And in a strange turn of events, the Tea Party — of which McAllister is a member — is offering its assistance, Lowery said. No date has been set for the protest.


Neutrality about homosexuality not allowed

We read:
"Seven suicides within two years at one suburban school district outside Minneapolis has enflamed a culture war between teachers, parents, and national interest groups in regards to the district’s policy of leaving the discussion on homosexuality outside of the classroom.

The Southern Poverty Law Center and National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a federal lawsuit against Anoka-Hennepin Public Schools last week in regards to the district’s “curricular neutrality” about LGBT issues, and the U.S. departments of justice and education have announced formal investigations into the policy.

“Sam Wolfe, an attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the advocacy groups behind the federal lawsuit, wrote the district a letter in May, saying the ‘gag policy’ prevented ‘meaningful’ classroom discussion on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.”

CNN reports that parents and friends say that four of the seven dead students in Anoka were either gay, perceived to be gay or questioning their sexuality, and they say at least two of them were bullied over their sexuality.


1 August, 2011

The Beleaguered Christians: Campus Crusade Drops Christ

We read:
"Many faithful Christians feel that Campus Crusade for Christ’s announcement to drop Christ from their name is one more confirmation that there is a wholesale departure from the bedrock foundation of their faith. A woman recently asked me, “Where will this end?” Certainly, she is not alone in feeling overwhelmed and confused at the changes taking place today.

While I am not one who questions the motives of CCCI’s current leadership’s decision to drop “Christ” out of their name, I do question the wisdom of their timing. In a time when political correctness has run amok and the name of Christ has been eliminated from many Christian organizations (like The Christian Children’s Fund who is now ChildFund International), the faithful feel that Campus Crusade’s decision is yet another rug pulled out from under them.

Some Christians are rightly skeptical of CCCI Vice President Sellers’ words assuring them that, “…the ministry will still be committed to proclaiming Christ around the world.”


Free speech for Breivik?

We read:
"There has been widespread support within Norway for a closed trial, to deny Breivik the platform he appears to be seeking. Given the scale of what has happened there is unquestionably something obscene about the prospect of watching him expound his lunatic worldview to an international audience.

But the fear that such exposure would necessarily boost Breivik’s cause, and encourage likeminded bigots elsewhere, must be resisted. In fact it is precisely on occasions like these that a vibrant public sphere matters most.

The belief that freedom of expression is the fundamental requirement of an open society is based on the idea that grievances like those which animate racist and xenophobic political groups throughout Europe are better aired in the context of civilized debate rather than allowed to fester in private societies.

Distasteful as it may seem to many of us, it is better in the long run for prejudices to be openly debated and defeated by better arguments. Otherwise the hatreds of these groups become self-reinforcing.

Prejudice and paranoia never survive the rigours of open debate, and the horrors of the massacre in Norway should not be allowed to obscure this important truth.


Posts from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).

"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane."

Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.

A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and "homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective discourse.

Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race. Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he could simply be mistaken or misinformed.

Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?

Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862

The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." -- Judge Learned Hand

Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.

It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not to let your impressions carry you away."

"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica

Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener's inability to offer an intelligent response

Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper

Why are Leftists always talking about hate? Because it fills their own hearts

Leftists don't have principles. How can they when "there is no such thing as right and wrong"? All they have is postures, pretend-principles that can be changed as easily as one changes one's shirt

When you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse.

The naive scholar who searches for a consistent Leftist program will not find it. What there is consists only in the negation of the present.

The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."